Original ricin suspect was held despite evidence pointing to another man
Video: Paul Kevin Curtis, who was accused of sending ricin-laced letters to the President andothers, speaks after being released from custody on April 23.
By Kimberly Kindy, May 01, 2013 10:21 PM EDT
The Washington Post TUPELO, Miss. — After keeping Elvis impersonator Paul Kevin Curtis in jail for a week, interrogating him while he was chained to a chair and turning his house upside down, federal authorities had no confession or physical evidence tying him to the ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and other public officials.
Investigators already had another man in their sights and, according to an FBI affidavit, were collecting physical evidence against this second suspect. It was beginning to look as if Curtis had been framed.
.But instead of setting Curtis free, court records show, federal officials sought to keep him in custody.
First, three days after the arrest, prosecutors asked for a psychiatric evaluation — a request usually made by defense lawyers. That could have extended his stay in federal prison by several months and allowed investigators to continue to question him.
Then, after a judge denied the request, federal prosecutors filed a motion seeking to postpone a court hearing at which they would be required to reveal the evidence they had against Curtis. That was also turned down.
“They wanted to keep Mr. Curtis in custody while they built a case,” said Hal Neilson, a former FBI agent who is Curtis’s attorney. “They knew early on he wasn’t the right guy, but they fought to hold on to him anyway.”
The FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oxford, Miss., did not respond to requests for interviews or to written questions.
An official with the federal court, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Neilson’s characterization of the prosecutor’s request for a psychiatric examination and for a postponement were accurate and that they were viewed by the court as unnecessary delays.
Curtis was arrested April 17 after coming to the attention of federal investigators. The ricin-laced letters had closed with the sentence “I am KC and I approve this message” — language very similar to that in letters Curtis previously had written to public officials. Phrases in the ricin letters also matched those on Curtis’s Facebook page.
Investigators had no other evidence against him, according to the FBI affidavit and court testimony. At a hearing a week later, after prosecutors unsuccessfully asked to keep him under house arrest and again tried to postpone the hearing, Curtis was released and charges of threatening the president and other elected officials by mailing ricin-laced letters were dropped.
On Saturday, the second suspect, James Everett Dutschke, was arrested at his home and accused of making ricin and placing it in letters he sent to Obama, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Justice Court Judge Sadie Holland of Mississippi’s Lee County. Dutschke, who faces a life sentence if convicted, pleaded not guilty this week to a charge of attempting to use a biological weapon.
Echoes of anthrax case
Amid intense public and political interest in the ricin case, federal investigators began focusing on Curtis after staffers in Wicker’s Senate office said they had previously received correspondence from him with language similar to the poisoned letters. The ricin letters also seemed to allude to Curtis’s unpublished novel, “Missing Pieces,” about black-market trading in human body parts, which he had mentioned on his Facebook page.
“This was all available for anyone to see,” Curtis said in an interview. “I guess it was easy to frame me. But really, was it enough for them to arrest me? Anyone could have done this.”
Once he was in custody, federal officials tried to improve the case against him, FBI documents and court records show. Search warrants for Curtis’s Corinth, Miss., home and his car were obtained the day after he was arrested. Four days after his jailing, warrants were obtained for his Tom-Tom Global Positioning System device and cellphone, records show.
.Criminal justice experts say the arrest of Curtis without any physical evidence to tie him to the crime harks back to the investigation of bioweapons expert Steven J. Hatfill, who was falsely accused of the 2001 anthrax-letter attacksthat killed five people. Like Curtis, Hatfill had an unpublished novel that seemed to tie him to the crime.
With Curtis, however, experts said the FBI’s leap was larger.
“Hatfill had technical qualifications and a background that also led the FBI to zero in on him, but this guy is an Elvis impersonator with an apparent history of mental instability and a Facebook page with some distinctive and curious language on it,” said Amy E. Smithson, a senior fellow with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies who studies biological weapons.
Neilson, Curtis’s attorney, said he understands why the FBI and other federal authorities — including the Capitol Police, the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security — focused on his client. But Neilson said they crossed the line when they shackled his hands and feet and arrested him before they searched his home and car.
“I was the FBI supervisor in this district for years. I’ve run plenty of investigations, and I can tell you this is not the way to run an investigation,” Neilson said. “I would not have arrested him based on stuff that I found off his Facebook page.”
He said Curtis should have been asked to accompany officials to a federal facility for questioning — without being arrested — while they secured a search warrant and conducted a search.
Andrew J. Scott, a retired Boca Raton, Fla., police chief and expert court witness on police procedure, said authorities had enough information to detain Curtis while the investigation proceeded, but probably not enough to arrest him.
“The letters and his mental state would not likely add up to probable cause, which you need to make an arrest,” said Scott, a graduate of the FBI National Academy. “The evidence came from publicly available social-media sites. And the last time I checked, psychological profiling is not an element of probable cause. Without further investigating, it can lead to the kind of fiasco we are seeing here.”
Criminal justice experts said the political pressure from Washington to solve the ricin case would have been intense, particularly since the president was targeted and it occurred around the same time as the Boston Marathon bombing. Some experts said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks taught law enforcement officials to do everything possible to prevent attacks, even if it means arresting the wrong person
“There would have been unlimited armchair quarterbacking if he was the guy and more letters went out while they continued to investigate him,” said Chris Swecker, who retired as chief of the FBI’s criminal division in 2006. “When the stakes are this high, they have a sense of urgency to move faster.”
Conflicting evidence
.Even as federal investigators were asking for the psychiatric evaluation of Curtis and the continuance, they knew of evidence suggesting that Dutschke was behind the ricin-laced letters, according to an FBI affidavit unsealed Tuesday.
Curtis and Dutschke have a long-running dispute, and Curtis had accused Dutschke of trying to frame him in the ricin case.
Two days after Curtis was arrested, FBI agents found a witness who told them that Dutschke, a martial-arts instructor and former insurance salesman, had boasted about his ability to manufacture “poison.” He discussed placing it in envelopes and sending it to elected officials and said that “whoever opened the envelopes containing the poison would die,” the affidavit said.
On April 22, FBI agents watched Dutschke discard a coffee grinder, a dust mask and latex gloves in a trash bin. The dust mask tested positive for ricin, and an agent said that the coffee grinder could have been used to extract the poison from castor beans, the affidavit said.
Despite the evidence pointing to Dutschke, one day later federal prosecutors asked that Curtis be placed under house arrest.
“We said, ‘No way,’ ” Neilson recalled. “We were smelling victory at that point. We said, ‘Drop the charges and let him go.’ ”
Curtis’s attorneys sent a letter this week to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI asking them to pay for temporary housing for Curtis and compensate him for damage to his home. FBI agents who searched his house one day after his arrest destroyed framed artwork created by his children, dumped garbage on the floor and tore at least one door from its hinges, making the home uninhabitable, his attorneys said.
Even if the damage was unavoidable as a result of a thorough search, federal authorities are legally required to fully compensate Curtis, according to Scott, the former Boca Raton police chief.
“The proper thing to do, the first moment you realize you have the wrong guy, would be to send over repair people to fix the damage,” he said. “It’s a black eye for law enforcement to make a mistake like this and then to not try to immediately make it right.”
Alice Crites in Washington contributed to this report.
Surely they can't be as inept as the story suggests? Maybe they just wanted to make sure they had the right guy, surely if it was as clear cut as the article says they would have just released him?
Politically an arse in the proverbial chair is better than nothing; especially when the US Govt have been banging the Terror drum for more than a decade they need to look like they are effective with all the powers the have drawn up.
SilverMK2 wrote: If only he had a gun. That would have magically stopped all this from happening to him...
He did-the best kind. He had a hired gun. He had...a lawyer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: Surely they can't be as inept as the story suggests? Maybe they just wanted to make sure they had the right guy, surely if it was as clear cut as the article says they would have just released him?
Yeah, why should the FBI hold onto a lunatic suspected of attempting to assassinate several politicians, including the president, when the only proof they have is that he's insane, and the letters were specifically tailored to look like he wrote them? It's an intolerable abuse of power to only release him after conclusively finding the actual lunatic behind the letters!
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Yeah, why should the FBI hold onto a lunatic suspected of attempting to assassinate several politicians, including the president, when the only proof they have is that he's insane, and the letters were specifically tailored to look like he wrote them? It's an intolerable abuse of power to only release him after conclusively finding the actual lunatic behind the letters!
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Yeah, why should the FBI hold onto a lunatic suspected of attempting to assassinate several politicians, including the president, when the only proof they have is that he's insane, and the letters were specifically tailored to look like he wrote them? It's an intolerable abuse of power to only release him after conclusively finding the actual lunatic behind the letters!
He was not 'insane'. And there should be a stronger burden of proof required to detain a citizen for multiple days. If you are actually stating that if a crime is committed the feds should be able to grab anyone they want to consider insane and detain them indefinitely until an actual perp is caught, I hope your vision of what federal power should be NEVER comes to pass.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Yeah, why should the FBI hold onto a lunatic suspected of attempting to assassinate several politicians, including the president, when the only proof they have is that he's insane, and the letters were specifically tailored to look like he wrote them? It's an intolerable abuse of power to only release him after conclusively finding the actual lunatic behind the letters!
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Yeah, why should the FBI hold onto a lunatic suspected of attempting to assassinate several politicians, including the president, when the only proof they have is that he's insane, and the letters were specifically tailored to look like he wrote them? It's an intolerable abuse of power to only release him after conclusively finding the actual lunatic behind the letters!
He was not 'insane'.
Prove it, there's no due process to commit someone, you don't even really even have to inform family.
just "lose" his ID's, say he's insane/delusional and get him on meds, dump him in a mental facility, you can sober him up for questioning and never have to release him or go to court.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Yeah, why should the FBI hold onto a lunatic suspected of attempting to assassinate several politicians, including the president, when the only proof they have is that he's insane, and the letters were specifically tailored to look like he wrote them? It's an intolerable abuse of power to only release him after conclusively finding the actual lunatic behind the letters!
He was not 'insane'.
Prove it, there's no due process to commit someone, you don't even really even have to inform family.
just "lose" his ID's, say he's insane/delusional and get him on meds, dump him in a mental facility, you can sober him up for questioning and never have to release him or go to court.
The judge thought differantly when he denied the prosecutions motion to do just that.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Yeah, why should the FBI hold onto a lunatic suspected of attempting to assassinate several politicians, including the president, when the only proof they have is that he's insane, and the letters were specifically tailored to look like he wrote them? It's an intolerable abuse of power to only release him after conclusively finding the actual lunatic behind the letters!
He was not 'insane'.
Prove it, there's no due process to commit someone, you don't even really even have to inform family. just "lose" his ID's, say he's insane/delusional and get him on meds, dump him in a mental facility, you can sober him up for questioning and never have to release him or go to court.
Your lack of knowledge about the actual law is as staggering as it is scary. You're not former KGB are you? After all thats what the USSR did.
Frazzled wrote: Really, you know someone who was committed without signoff or hearing and then held incommunicado? I'm impressed.
short version
-angry person yelling on phone about bush
-angry person nabbed by fbi at home, card left that doesn't go anywhere
-mom keeps calling, no one can tell her anything
-about 4 months later, friend of his gets off at wrong floor at hospital spots his missing buddy shuffling around high on something, nurse on floor will not answer any questions
-mom gets informed, about a month of phone calls later, and getting local congressmen involved, he gets released.
-he was too drugged up to remember anything, no one apparently knows anything, its a handful of years later and she's still looking for someone to sue.
Frazzled wrote: Really, you know someone who was committed without signoff or hearing and then held incommunicado? I'm impressed.
short version
-angry person yelling on phone about bush
-angry person nabbed by fbi at home, card left that doesn't go anywhere
-mom keeps calling, no one can tell her anything
-about 4 months later, friend of his gets off at wrong floor at hospital spots his missing buddy shuffling around high on something, nurse on floor will not answer any questions
-mom gets informed, about a month of phone calls later, and getting local congressmen involved, he gets released.
-he was too drugged up to remember anything, no one apparently knows anything, its a handful of years later and she's still looking for someone to sue.
Well either you left out MASSIVE chunks of the story or its total BS. Either is ok as you're not trying to prove anything to me and I couldn't be arsed to care.
Typically there are court or hearing proceedings where multiple psychiatrists have to sign off that you're coockoo and coockoo to a level that you are eminently dangerous to yourself or others. Court decisions have made involuntary committment of people practically impossible, to the detriment of many who need the help and become (or are) homeless soon after.
Well either you left out MASSIVE chunks of the story or its total BS. Either is ok as you're not trying to prove anything to me and I couldn't be arsed to care.
Typically there are court or hearing proceedings where multiple psychiatrists have to sign off that you're coockoo and coockoo to a level that you are eminently dangerous to yourself or others. Court decisions have made involuntary committment of people practically impossible, to the detriment of many who need the help and become (or are) homeless soon after.
In NY it's just 2 doctors who don't necessarily have to have any sort of history with you, and a parent or govt official have to sign some paperwork.
Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...
Original ricin suspect was held despite evidence pointing to another man Video: Paul Kevin Curtis, who was accused of sending ricin-laced letters to the President and others, speaks after being released from custody on April 23.
By Kimberly Kindy, May 01, 2013 10:21 PM EDT
The Washington Post TUPELO, Miss. — After keeping Elvis impersonator Paul Kevin Curtis in jail for a week, interrogating him while he was chained to a chair and turning his house upside down, federal authorities had no confession or physical evidence tying him to the ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and other public officials.
Investigators already had another man in their sights and, according to an FBI affidavit, were collecting physical evidence against this second suspect. It was beginning to look as if Curtis had been framed. .But instead of setting Curtis free, court records show, federal officials sought to keep him in custody.
...
“They wanted to keep Mr. Curtis in custody while they built a case,” said Hal Neilson, a former FBI agent who is Curtis’s attorney. “They knew early on he wasn’t the right guy, but they fought to hold on to him anyway.” ...
On Saturday, the second suspect, James Everett Dutschke, was arrested at his home and accused of making ricin and placing it in letters he sent to Obama, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Justice Court Judge Sadie Holland of Mississippi’s Lee County. Dutschke, who faces a life sentence if convicted, pleaded not guilty this week to a charge of attempting to use a biological weapon.
...
Despite the evidence pointing to Dutschke, one day later federal prosecutors asked that Curtis be placed under house arrest. ...
Even if the damage was unavoidable as a result of a thorough search, federal authorities are legally required to fully compensate Curtis, according to Scott, the former Boca Raton police chief.
Edited for brevity.
So the FBI decided to keep someone under the spotlight while they knew he was innocent and were building a case against another person.
As the case was about an alleged attempt to poison the President, the FBI had to make a judgement call. Do the ends justify the means?
If they come to the conclusion that they do as it appears they had then the US government owes Mr Curtis a debt of gratitude for his unwilling cooperation.
The FBI could have done better by detaining him under simulated interrogation at secure but pleasant surroundings, offered him a defence lawyer actually paid for by the Secret Service and the promise of a bonus when the real poisoner is found.
Perhaps they could have solicited his co-operation.
Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...
Well, it worked the one and only time we actually tried it.
Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...
Well, it worked the one and only time we actually tried it.
Well... not quite. Under the relatively weak argument that 10th Amendment of the States was being overrun by the Fed Government, the Civil War was started. The guns didn't work for the South in that one. But I feel their argument was wrong in the first place, so that's that.
Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...
Well, it worked the one and only time we actually tried it.
Well... not quite. Under the relatively weak argument that 10th Amendment of the States was being overrun by the Fed Government, the Civil War was started. The guns didn't work for the South in that one. But I feel their argument was wrong in the first place, so that's that.
That's fair, so it worked one out of the two times we tried it.
Also, something along the lines of "the south didn't get their way which means they were wrong".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alternatively, it worked for the civil war also. Just not in the same way.
You can't trust that, what with its ties to government and all.
What connection? It limits the government... big difference.
Yes, but the only reason the constitution is a thing is because the government chooses to recognize it. You do understand that right? That the constitution is not a magically-enchanted parchment that shoots eldritch justice beams at all who violate it?
You can't trust that, what with its ties to government and all.
What connection? It limits the government... big difference.
Yes, but the only reason the constitution is a thing is because the government chooses to recognize it. You do understand that right? That the constitution is not a magically-enchanted parchment that shoots eldritch justice beams at all who violate it?
Government don't get to choose... they are compelled. That's the distinction.
That's the way it needs to work. If the voters/government don't like the application of certain laws, there are formal process to address those concerns.
You can't trust that, what with its ties to government and all.
What connection? It limits the government... big difference.
Yes, but the only reason the constitution is a thing is because the government chooses to recognize it. You do understand that right? That the constitution is not a magically-enchanted parchment that shoots eldritch justice beams at all who violate it?
Government don't get to choose... they are compelled. That's the distinction.
That's the way it needs to work. If the voters/government don't like the application of certain laws, there are formal process to address those concerns.
I'm afraid not. Being compelled by oneself is synonymous with choosing. While you can make the argument that government is compelled by its various branches, ultimately if the whole of the executive and legislative branches (POTUS, Senate, Congress) decided to one day shout "Form of: Leviathan!", start grunting, powered up for a while and then melded into a great kaiju bureacracy monster; brushing aside the constitution and saying "nope, not today"; there is absolutely NOTHING you could do to stop it.
The constitution isn't the Ark of the Covenant. The constitution limits government because government agrees to allow the constitution to limit it.
The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.
You can't trust that, what with its ties to government and all.
What connection? It limits the government... big difference.
Yes, but the only reason the constitution is a thing is because the government chooses to recognize it. You do understand that right? That the constitution is not a magically-enchanted parchment that shoots eldritch justice beams at all who violate it?
Government don't get to choose... they are compelled. That's the distinction.
That's the way it needs to work. If the voters/government don't like the application of certain laws, there are formal process to address those concerns.
I'm afraid not. Being compelled by oneself is synonymous with choosing. While you can make the argument that government is compelled by its various branches, ultimately if the whole of the executive and legislative branches (POTUS, Senate, Congress) decided to one day shout "Form of: Leviathan!", start grunting, powered up for a while and then melded into a great kaiju bureacracy monster; brushing aside the constitution and saying "nope, not today"; there is absolutely NOTHING you could do to stop it.
The constitution isn't the Ark of the Covenant. The constitution limits government because government agrees to allow the constitution to limit it.
And because the government realizes that if we the people decide we've had it we have both the means and will to overthrow them and put in a new government.
djones520 wrote:The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.
Grey Templar wrote:And because the government realizes that if we the people decide we've had it we have both the means and will to overthrow them and put in a new government.
Oh, I don't doubt that would happen. I just don't think the outcome would be anything at all like what GT thinks it would. I mean, really now. What exactly do you think of when you say "the means ... to overthrow them"?
I can't speak for GT,. but what it makes me think of is enough weapons to be dangerous, combined with enough rapidly cooling bodies on the ground to get the loyal forces demoralized enough to stop driving tanks over the revolutionaries.
djones520 wrote: The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.
Then I'd quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood ofpatriots and tyrants."
The point isn't necessarily that the people could overthrow a tyrannical government single-handed. The idea is more that the people could put up enough of a fight to make it not worth it for the government to attempt the kind of tyranny that would spark such a conflict.
Plus there's the issue of a potential military split, state-controlled National Guard units, county Sheriff's with the ability to organize or disrupt resistance at the local level, etc.
The whole situation is pretty unlikely, but any form it could possibly take would be much more complicated than the government simply controlling the entire military who will wipe out all American citizens who resist in a pitched battle with tanks and planes.
Hordini wrote:The point isn't necessarily that the people could overthrow a tyrannical government single-handed. The idea is more that the people could put up enough of a fight to make it not worth it for the government to attempt the kind of tyranny that would spark such a conflict.
Plus there's the issue of a potential military split, state-controlled National Guard units, county Sheriff's with the ability to organize or disrupt resistance at the local level, etc.
The whole situation is pretty unlikely, but any form it could possibly take would be much more complicated than the government simply controlling the entire military who will wipe out all American citizens who resist in a pitched battle with tanks and planes.
I agree; I guess my point is simply that American citizens do not have tanks and planes, and anytime there is a conflict between have-tanks and have-nots, the outcome is going to be incredibly obvious. That's why I just don't buy the "could put up enough of a fight" rhetoric. I consider it a romanticized thought, and entirely implausible, even in this hypothetical scenario.
It is all romanticized, you'd be really surprised at how many people I've met who hold it dear in their hearts though, fantasizing to the point of longing for this to happen.
Hordini wrote:The point isn't necessarily that the people could overthrow a tyrannical government single-handed. The idea is more that the people could put up enough of a fight to make it not worth it for the government to attempt the kind of tyranny that would spark such a conflict.
Plus there's the issue of a potential military split, state-controlled National Guard units, county Sheriff's with the ability to organize or disrupt resistance at the local level, etc.
The whole situation is pretty unlikely, but any form it could possibly take would be much more complicated than the government simply controlling the entire military who will wipe out all American citizens who resist in a pitched battle with tanks and planes.
I agree; I guess my point is simply that American citizens do not have tanks and planes, and anytime there is a conflict between have-tanks and have-nots, the outcome is going to be incredibly obvious. That's why I just don't buy the "could put up enough of a fight" rhetoric. I consider it a romanticized thought, and entirely implausible, even in this hypothetical scenario.
Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...
Well, it worked the one and only time we actually tried it.
You needed the help of the French and Spanish empires too, and they took so much damage they both collapsed over the next 10-30 years.
Frazzled wrote: Wait you want rednecks armed to the teeth, on honey boo boo withdrawal, and WITH a reason to point all those guns at you?
Talk about a blood bath...
You're right, need to soften them up first by drugging their drinking water to make them more plyable
Compare the rise in bottled water drinking with the rise in "real" americans
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
MeanGreenStompa wrote:It is all romanticized, you'd be really surprised at how many people I've met who hold it dear in their hearts though, fantasizing to the point of longing for this to happen.
I really wouldn't.
Frazzled wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: I guess my point is simply that American citizens do not have tanks and planes, and anytime there is a conflict between have-tanks and have-nots, the outcome is going to be incredibly obvious. That's why I just don't buy the "could put up enough of a fight" rhetoric. I consider it a romanticized thought, and entirely implausible, even in this hypothetical scenario.
Like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan right?
So how many RPGs are in civilian hands in the US, again? And how many US militia groups are funded by the USSR?
EDIT: Also, comparing an obese mall ninja with stars-and-bars jogging pants to a hard-as-nails VC fighter living in a cu chi tunnel is laughable. That's like saying "I went to summer camp down by the lake, so I can totally handle supermax prison".
azazel the cat wrote: Also, comparing an obese mall ninja with stars-and-bars jogging pants to a hard-as-nails VC fighter living in a cu chi tunnel is laughable. That's like saying "I went to summer camp down by the lake, so I can totally handle supermax prison".
Don't you get molested at both summer camp and supermax prison?
azazel the cat wrote: Also, comparing an obese mall ninja with stars-and-bars jogging pants to a hard-as-nails VC fighter living in a cu chi tunnel is laughable. That's like saying "I went to summer camp down by the lake, so I can totally handle supermax prison".
Don't you get molested at both summer camp and supermax prison?
azazel the cat wrote: Also, comparing an obese mall ninja with stars-and-bars jogging pants to a hard-as-nails VC fighter living in a cu chi tunnel is laughable. That's like saying "I went to summer camp down by the lake, so I can totally handle supermax prison".
Don't you get molested at both summer camp and supermax prison?
Touche (does that count as a pun?)
I'll touche you... with express written consent...
Looks like Kansas is thumbing their nose at Eric Holder:
On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law states, in part:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
The bill also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.
In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition. He wrote:
“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”
He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”
Let’s take Eric apart here.
1. Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities. On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional. It is the position that such federal acts are indeed a violation of the Constitution. No matter how much Eric might believe it to be otherwise, his view is obviously not universal – especially in Kansas.
2. The Supremacy Clause. Holder takes the position that all tyrants do – that everything they do is authorized, anything to the contrary – worthless. But Holder is wrong. The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme. The new Kansas legislation, again, takes the position that such federal acts are not constitutional, and therefore not supreme.
3. Historical Precedent. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that basically required all states in the north to act as slave catchers for black people claimed as property in the South. It’s one of the most disgusting acts in American history. A number of northern states passed laws similar to the new Kansas law, criminalizing federal agents for attempting to kidnap people in their states. Although the feds still claimed the same kind of authority that Eric Holder has claimed today, they didn’t have the manpower to enforce. Read more about that here. As an aside, if Holder would like to take the position that such resistance to federal slave laws was wrong, he’s welcome to publicly state that.
Eric capped off his letter by assuring the People of Kansas that the federal government will continue to enforce all federal gun laws. He wrote:
“I am writing to inform you that federal law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Attorney’s Office…will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.”
4. Manpower. That brings us to the most important fact, the federal government simply does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws already. The new Kansas law doesn’t just deal with firearms made within the state. It also bans all state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control measures. (learn about the bill in detail here). As Judge Andrew Napolitano has affirmed recently, such widespread noncompliance makes federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). So Eric can promise to enforce these federal acts all he wants. But if Kansas doesn’t help him, he might be able to get a 2% enforcement rate. Or, he’ll have to pull resources from other states.
WHAT SHOULD THE RESPONSE BE?
1. Hold the Line, and Tell Holder to buzz off. Seriously. This guy has been sending threatening letters to states around the country on medical marijuana laws for years (and so did his predecessors). In fact, those letters are often even more aggressive, threatening taking property or even criminal sanctions against state or local politicians. A letter last year threatened just that against the San Diego city council. (read it here) That community knows full well the threats that are constantly made against their liberties by Holder and his DOJ team. But they push on and keep doing what they believe is right. The People of Kansas need to stand strong in support of the 2nd Amendment and reject these threats from the DOJ.
2. Local resistance. Recognizing that manpower is a VERY serious problem for the feds, people in Kansas should be constantly reaching out to county, city and town elected officials to respectfully press them into passing local ordinances to ensure that no assets will be used to enforce federal gun control. Covering the states in ordinances that provide backup to the new state law will ensure that federal gun control will be “nearly impossible to enforce.”
LEARN MORE AND GET ACTION ITEMS HERE
3. Call Sam Brownback. Flood his phone line with messages of encouragement and support. Let him know that the people have his back – that’s how governors show courage. Brownback has a chance to act like a hero to the entire country. In fact, people all over the country should send him letters in support – he’s going to need all the help he can get.
4. Support efforts in other states. Kansas can’t do it alone. A similar bill is up for a signature in Alaska. Bills are moving forward in Missouri, Alabama and elsewhere. Every state and local community that does the same will make federal enforcement even more difficult, and eventually, the feds can pass all the “laws” they want, but they won’t have any effect.
JUST SAY NO!
The bad guys always talk tough, and they want to scare you into compliance . But the fact remains – they don’t have the manpower to carry out all their threats. Even with almost full state and local cooperation, there are now 18 states defying DC on marijuana prohibition. As two states – Washington and Colorado – legalize what the feds say is illegal, we’re watching the beginning of the end of federal dominance over the states.
whembly wrote:Looks like Kansas is thumbing their nose at Eric Holder:
Spoiler:
On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law states, in part:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
The bill also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.
In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition. He wrote:
“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”
He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”
Let’s take Eric apart here.
1. Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities. On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional. It is the position that such federal acts are indeed a violation of the Constitution. No matter how much Eric might believe it to be otherwise, his view is obviously not universal – especially in Kansas.
2. The Supremacy Clause. Holder takes the position that all tyrants do – that everything they do is authorized, anything to the contrary – worthless. But Holder is wrong. The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme. The new Kansas legislation, again, takes the position that such federal acts are not constitutional, and therefore not supreme.
3. Historical Precedent. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that basically required all states in the north to act as slave catchers for black people claimed as property in the South. It’s one of the most disgusting acts in American history. A number of northern states passed laws similar to the new Kansas law, criminalizing federal agents for attempting to kidnap people in their states. Although the feds still claimed the same kind of authority that Eric Holder has claimed today, they didn’t have the manpower to enforce. Read more about that here. As an aside, if Holder would like to take the position that such resistance to federal slave laws was wrong, he’s welcome to publicly state that.
Eric capped off his letter by assuring the People of Kansas that the federal government will continue to enforce all federal gun laws. He wrote:
“I am writing to inform you that federal law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Attorney’s Office…will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.”
4. Manpower. That brings us to the most important fact, the federal government simply does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws already. The new Kansas law doesn’t just deal with firearms made within the state. It also bans all state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control measures. (learn about the bill in detail here). As Judge Andrew Napolitano has affirmed recently, such widespread noncompliance makes federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). So Eric can promise to enforce these federal acts all he wants. But if Kansas doesn’t help him, he might be able to get a 2% enforcement rate. Or, he’ll have to pull resources from other states.
WHAT SHOULD THE RESPONSE BE?
1. Hold the Line, and Tell Holder to buzz off. Seriously. This guy has been sending threatening letters to states around the country on medical marijuana laws for years (and so did his predecessors). In fact, those letters are often even more aggressive, threatening taking property or even criminal sanctions against state or local politicians. A letter last year threatened just that against the San Diego city council. (read it here) That community knows full well the threats that are constantly made against their liberties by Holder and his DOJ team. But they push on and keep doing what they believe is right. The People of Kansas need to stand strong in support of the 2nd Amendment and reject these threats from the DOJ.
2. Local resistance. Recognizing that manpower is a VERY serious problem for the feds, people in Kansas should be constantly reaching out to county, city and town elected officials to respectfully press them into passing local ordinances to ensure that no assets will be used to enforce federal gun control. Covering the states in ordinances that provide backup to the new state law will ensure that federal gun control will be “nearly impossible to enforce.”
LEARN MORE AND GET ACTION ITEMS HERE
3. Call Sam Brownback. Flood his phone line with messages of encouragement and support. Let him know that the people have his back – that’s how governors show courage. Brownback has a chance to act like a hero to the entire country. In fact, people all over the country should send him letters in support – he’s going to need all the help he can get.
4. Support efforts in other states. Kansas can’t do it alone. A similar bill is up for a signature in Alaska. Bills are moving forward in Missouri, Alabama and elsewhere. Every state and local community that does the same will make federal enforcement even more difficult, and eventually, the feds can pass all the “laws” they want, but they won’t have any effect.
JUST SAY NO!
The bad guys always talk tough, and they want to scare you into compliance . But the fact remains – they don’t have the manpower to carry out all their threats. Even with almost full state and local cooperation, there are now 18 states defying DC on marijuana prohibition. As two states – Washington and Colorado – legalize what the feds say is illegal, we’re watching the beginning of the end of federal dominance over the states.
djones520 wrote:The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.
Grey Templar wrote:And because the government realizes that if we the people decide we've had it we have both the means and will to overthrow them and put in a new government.
Oh, I don't doubt that would happen. I just don't think the outcome would be anything at all like what GT thinks it would. I mean, really now. What exactly do you think of when you say "the means ... to overthrow them"?
Well, in the event of another civil war, you would have a significant portion of the armed forces leave the Federal government and side with the rebels, you would also have a significant portion simply refuse to pick a side.
Then you have what ever armories the rebels managed to seize.
That would put both sides on pretty equal footing. Leaving out any guerrilla warfare that happens. Given what hell our troops get in Afghanistan/Iraq get from insurgents armed with AKs and homemade explosives I shudder to think what we could come up with.
A Molotov Cocktail is simple and deadly. All you need is a little gas, some cloth, and a glass bottle. You could make hundreds in only a couple hours.
This all doesn't even consider what arms the citizens may have normally, thanks to the second amendment.
A second civil war would not end well for the government.
Let us not forget the million + veterans of recent wars who know how the military works, know the gear inside out, and very often have active duty buddies.
Personally I think this type of speculation is silly. A mass Civil War is so very unlikely. I could see something similar to the Battle of Athens, but a more likely scenario is a break down in a major urban area similar to the Watts or LA riots. You'll note that in those cases NG troopers under state control did fire on fellow citizens and federal troops (and federalized NG) were also used to gain/maintain order. But you must also note that the grievances of the 'rebels' were not ones that the troops would be very sympathetic too...
CptJake wrote: Let us not forget the million + veterans of recent wars who know how the military works, know the gear inside out, and very often have active duty buddies.
Personally I think this type of speculation is silly. A mass Civil War is so very unlikely. I could see something similar to the Battle of Athens, but a more likely scenario is a break down in a major urban area similar to the Watts or LA riots. You'll note that in those cases NG troopers under state control did fire on fellow citizens and federal troops (and federalized NG) were also used to gain/maintain order. But you must also note that the grievances of the 'rebels' were not ones that the troops would be very sympathetic too...
Yeah, mass looting isn't something I'm exactly going to defy orders to support.
Yeah, mass looting isn't something I'm exactly going to defy orders to support.
The Korean American shop owners (and their families/communities) during the LA riots are a fantastic example of why the 2nd Amendment is important. Frankly it is silly to believe that type of situation can't or won't happen again.
whembly wrote:Looks like Kansas is thumbing their nose at Eric Holder:
Spoiler:
On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law states, in part:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
The bill also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.
In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition. He wrote:
“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”
He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”
Let’s take Eric apart here.
1. Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities. On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional. It is the position that such federal acts are indeed a violation of the Constitution. No matter how much Eric might believe it to be otherwise, his view is obviously not universal – especially in Kansas.
2. The Supremacy Clause. Holder takes the position that all tyrants do – that everything they do is authorized, anything to the contrary – worthless. But Holder is wrong. The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme. The new Kansas legislation, again, takes the position that such federal acts are not constitutional, and therefore not supreme.
3. Historical Precedent. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that basically required all states in the north to act as slave catchers for black people claimed as property in the South. It’s one of the most disgusting acts in American history. A number of northern states passed laws similar to the new Kansas law, criminalizing federal agents for attempting to kidnap people in their states. Although the feds still claimed the same kind of authority that Eric Holder has claimed today, they didn’t have the manpower to enforce. Read more about that here. As an aside, if Holder would like to take the position that such resistance to federal slave laws was wrong, he’s welcome to publicly state that.
Eric capped off his letter by assuring the People of Kansas that the federal government will continue to enforce all federal gun laws. He wrote:
“I am writing to inform you that federal law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Attorney’s Office…will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.”
4. Manpower. That brings us to the most important fact, the federal government simply does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws already. The new Kansas law doesn’t just deal with firearms made within the state. It also bans all state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control measures. (learn about the bill in detail here). As Judge Andrew Napolitano has affirmed recently, such widespread noncompliance makes federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). So Eric can promise to enforce these federal acts all he wants. But if Kansas doesn’t help him, he might be able to get a 2% enforcement rate. Or, he’ll have to pull resources from other states.
WHAT SHOULD THE RESPONSE BE?
1. Hold the Line, and Tell Holder to buzz off. Seriously. This guy has been sending threatening letters to states around the country on medical marijuana laws for years (and so did his predecessors). In fact, those letters are often even more aggressive, threatening taking property or even criminal sanctions against state or local politicians. A letter last year threatened just that against the San Diego city council. (read it here) That community knows full well the threats that are constantly made against their liberties by Holder and his DOJ team. But they push on and keep doing what they believe is right. The People of Kansas need to stand strong in support of the 2nd Amendment and reject these threats from the DOJ.
2. Local resistance. Recognizing that manpower is a VERY serious problem for the feds, people in Kansas should be constantly reaching out to county, city and town elected officials to respectfully press them into passing local ordinances to ensure that no assets will be used to enforce federal gun control. Covering the states in ordinances that provide backup to the new state law will ensure that federal gun control will be “nearly impossible to enforce.”
LEARN MORE AND GET ACTION ITEMS HERE
3. Call Sam Brownback. Flood his phone line with messages of encouragement and support. Let him know that the people have his back – that’s how governors show courage. Brownback has a chance to act like a hero to the entire country. In fact, people all over the country should send him letters in support – he’s going to need all the help he can get.
4. Support efforts in other states. Kansas can’t do it alone. A similar bill is up for a signature in Alaska. Bills are moving forward in Missouri, Alabama and elsewhere. Every state and local community that does the same will make federal enforcement even more difficult, and eventually, the feds can pass all the “laws” they want, but they won’t have any effect.
JUST SAY NO!
The bad guys always talk tough, and they want to scare you into compliance . But the fact remains – they don’t have the manpower to carry out all their threats. Even with almost full state and local cooperation, there are now 18 states defying DC on marijuana prohibition. As two states – Washington and Colorado – legalize what the feds say is illegal, we’re watching the beginning of the end of federal dominance over the states.
Also, whoever wrote that blog post really should try to learn if individual states get to determined whether or not federal laws are unconstitutional.
Brownback doing his best to impress his government hating constituents even though he will likely just get this struck down and cost us, citizens in Kansas, a bunch of money.
I love politics.
I'd also really love to move, but unfortunately I managed to buy a house right before the giant housing crash.
Breotan wrote: Here's an article showing how the private sector is stepping up and correcting hurtful action by anti-gun school officials.
A scholarship to go to "Liberty University" doesn't exactly sound like it's a huge boon, considering that their biggest advertised program is a "Criminal Justice Program Grounded in the Bible".
Because the bible tells us everything we need to know about crime the law in the modern world.
You might as well get a fething liberal arts degree. It'll be worth just as much.
The OP in this story is a great reason why people should be furious with the legislators, such as Lindsey Graham, who in the aftermath of the Boston Bombing immediately called for the suspect to be declared an enemy combatant.
The guy with the pressure cooker bombs wasn't a threat to our freedoms, but the sentiments espoused by Senator Graham sure were.
Ouze wrote: The OP in this story is a great reason why people should be furious with the legislators, such as Lindsey Graham, who in the aftermath of the Boston Bombing immediately called for the suspect to be declared an enemy combatant.
The guy with the pressure cooker bombs wasn't a threat to our freedoms, but the sentiments espoused by Senator Graham sure were.
Its quite frightening how quickly some of them are more than willing to trample all over the tenants of our society when it fits whatever agenda they happen to be pursuing at the time.
I'm with Ouze on that. We were quick as Hell trying to label this kid as an enemy combatant. Its the knee jerk reaction and jump that leads to trouble. If we start labeling enemy combatant on US soil then we pretty much have insurgents within the US. Now their friends are getting rounded up for disposing of evidence.. So if Enemy Cmbatant was label and then we arresting their friends in connection then we are scaring the public into thinking we hve terrorist cells or non tactical enemy insurgent unit operating in the US
So what I'm wondering from all this is at what point does a person start shooting at federal officers or legislators or judges or what have you for the perceived breaking of constitutional rights that continue to go unpunished? I'm not trolling, this is actually something that I would like to know more about, at what point is it the duty of a citizen to forcefully resist the government? On a secondary related note, does no one realise that for all of the romanticism involved with the Battle of Athens and the "Rebelling against a tyrannical government that is running roughshod over the constitution." that while such actions can work against a local authority, such as the Battle of Athens, they would have had no hope in heck against a state or federal law person? Whoever drew first on the rebel side would be blown away instantly by people on the non-rebel side before the person had had a chance to convince them of the correctness of their cause. And if they let themself be taken away then the government has won has it not?
TL;DR, I'm tired confused and nicotine deprived. I'll make a better statement in the morning.
All I can think of. If there is a "revolution" it'll be huge protests around the country. The blind obidience of the military to the President a way far fetch. Lawful Orders and Unlawful orders comes into play. We had this discussion awhile back.....and I want my water cannon....
Melissia wrote: A scholarship to go to "Liberty University" doesn't exactly sound like it's a huge boon, considering that their biggest advertised program is a "Criminal Justice Program Grounded in the Bible".
Because the bible tells us everything we need to know about crime the law in the modern world.
You might as well get a fething liberal arts degree. It'll be worth just as much.
I knew it was going to be a mistake to "unblock" your post, but I just had to see if you had changed.
Unsurprisingly you haven't.
You just had to take an interesting thread, and turn it into a Bible bash thread.
djones520 wrote: The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.
Then I'd quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood ofpatriots and tyrants."
Melissia wrote: A scholarship to go to "Liberty University" doesn't exactly sound like it's a huge boon, considering that their biggest advertised program is a "Criminal Justice Program Grounded in the Bible".
Because the bible tells us everything we need to know about crime the law in the modern world.
You might as well get a fething liberal arts degree. It'll be worth just as much.
I knew it was going to be a mistake to "unblock" your post, but I just had to see if you had changed.
Unsurprisingly you haven't.
You just had to take an interesting thread, and turn it into a Bible bash thread.
GG
Pointing out that the Bible doesn't cover modern law is hardly bible bashing.
Grey Templar wrote:
A second civil war would not end well for the government.
As KK pointed out, the Government is the people. Any civil war would thus, by default, not end well for the government.
djones520 wrote: The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.
Then I'd quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood ofpatriots and tyrants."
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
Hardly. The last thing I would ever want is to do anything like that. The thought scares the hell out of me.
But that doesn't mean that I don't accept that it MAY be necessary one day. It could be 10 years from now, could be 200, who knows.
djones520 wrote: The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.
Then I'd quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood ofpatriots and tyrants."
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
I think you're confusing patriotism and nationalism. They're not the same thing, and there is certainly nothing inherently vicious about patriotism.
Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.' But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest.
No, the original saying was patriotism, not nationalism. It was an Oscar Wilde quote, alongside "Patriotism is the vice of nations." and the like.
I've seen many posts that think that intent behind it was closer to "Patriotism is a virtue that the vicious hide behind", but given Wilde's other quotes, I'm not sure.
djones520 wrote: The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.
Then I'd quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood ofpatriots and tyrants."
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
I think you're confusing patriotism and nationalism. They're not the same thing, and there is certainly nothing inherently vicious about patriotism.
The thing is, if I said nationalism instead of patriotism it'd no longer be an Oscar Wilde quote.
whembly wrote:Looks like Kansas is thumbing their nose at Eric Holder:
Spoiler:
On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law states, in part:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
The bill also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.
In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition. He wrote:
“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”
He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”
Let’s take Eric apart here.
1. Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities. On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional. It is the position that such federal acts are indeed a violation of the Constitution. No matter how much Eric might believe it to be otherwise, his view is obviously not universal – especially in Kansas.
2. The Supremacy Clause. Holder takes the position that all tyrants do – that everything they do is authorized, anything to the contrary – worthless. But Holder is wrong. The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme. The new Kansas legislation, again, takes the position that such federal acts are not constitutional, and therefore not supreme.
3. Historical Precedent. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that basically required all states in the north to act as slave catchers for black people claimed as property in the South. It’s one of the most disgusting acts in American history. A number of northern states passed laws similar to the new Kansas law, criminalizing federal agents for attempting to kidnap people in their states. Although the feds still claimed the same kind of authority that Eric Holder has claimed today, they didn’t have the manpower to enforce. Read more about that here. As an aside, if Holder would like to take the position that such resistance to federal slave laws was wrong, he’s welcome to publicly state that.
Eric capped off his letter by assuring the People of Kansas that the federal government will continue to enforce all federal gun laws. He wrote:
“I am writing to inform you that federal law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Attorney’s Office…will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.”
4. Manpower. That brings us to the most important fact, the federal government simply does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws already. The new Kansas law doesn’t just deal with firearms made within the state. It also bans all state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control measures. (learn about the bill in detail here). As Judge Andrew Napolitano has affirmed recently, such widespread noncompliance makes federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). So Eric can promise to enforce these federal acts all he wants. But if Kansas doesn’t help him, he might be able to get a 2% enforcement rate. Or, he’ll have to pull resources from other states.
WHAT SHOULD THE RESPONSE BE?
1. Hold the Line, and Tell Holder to buzz off. Seriously. This guy has been sending threatening letters to states around the country on medical marijuana laws for years (and so did his predecessors). In fact, those letters are often even more aggressive, threatening taking property or even criminal sanctions against state or local politicians. A letter last year threatened just that against the San Diego city council. (read it here) That community knows full well the threats that are constantly made against their liberties by Holder and his DOJ team. But they push on and keep doing what they believe is right. The People of Kansas need to stand strong in support of the 2nd Amendment and reject these threats from the DOJ.
2. Local resistance. Recognizing that manpower is a VERY serious problem for the feds, people in Kansas should be constantly reaching out to county, city and town elected officials to respectfully press them into passing local ordinances to ensure that no assets will be used to enforce federal gun control. Covering the states in ordinances that provide backup to the new state law will ensure that federal gun control will be “nearly impossible to enforce.” LEARN MORE AND GET ACTION ITEMS HERE
3. Call Sam Brownback. Flood his phone line with messages of encouragement and support. Let him know that the people have his back – that’s how governors show courage. Brownback has a chance to act like a hero to the entire country. In fact, people all over the country should send him letters in support – he’s going to need all the help he can get.
4. Support efforts in other states. Kansas can’t do it alone. A similar bill is up for a signature in Alaska. Bills are moving forward in Missouri, Alabama and elsewhere. Every state and local community that does the same will make federal enforcement even more difficult, and eventually, the feds can pass all the “laws” they want, but they won’t have any effect.
JUST SAY NO!
The bad guys always talk tough, and they want to scare you into compliance . But the fact remains – they don’t have the manpower to carry out all their threats. Even with almost full state and local cooperation, there are now 18 states defying DC on marijuana prohibition. As two states – Washington and Colorado – legalize what the feds say is illegal, we’re watching the beginning of the end of federal dominance over the states.
Also, whoever wrote that blog post really should try to learn if individual states get to determined whether or not federal laws are unconstitutional.
More then Eric Holder does. Kansas actually has all the legal standing in the world on this one. So Kansas passed it's firearms protection act awhile back which was basically a "eat it" to the feds and included a legal provision that firearms made in Kansas and sold in Kansas are not subject to federal law. Several states have passed similar provisions to the latter clause (Arizona and Montana in particular) but those laws haven't been tested in court yet.* Eric Holder sent the Governor a letter saying that via the Supremacy Clause that the Kansas FPA is unconstitutional. The following is the response:
(sorry about the size, squint a little or grab your magnify function, it's worth it!)
Looking like the DOJ is gonna be spending a lot of time in court with a couple states over states rights issues this year. Washington and Colorado have go to be getting ready to roll on a court battle over legalized pot, and then there's going to be a slap down drag out fight over firearms rights.
*Now the interesting thing about guns in America is the way the Federal government regulates them. It regulates firearms the same way it regulates a lot of crap it really shouldn't be, via the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is frequently abused to expand Federal power against the States. So if firearms are made and sold only in their state of origin then they don't fall under the ICC because theoretically any way, they aren't going any where. So there's no interstate commerce for the Feds to regulate under the ICC. There's some issues there if the end user takes his AZ/KS/MT only firearm out of state, but in general the legal theory seems sound. This is of great interest to me as a gunsmith and someone who will be applying for a manufacturer's permit, probably as I take up residence in Arizona or Montana as it could strongly affect the way I do business.**
Now the crazy extension of this is just how far that "opt out" by keeping things in state extends. I haven't really sat down with a lawyer and some pro gunsmiths who know the score, but theoretically it could potentially open up legal, unregistered manufacture of NFA weapons and items, such as short barreled rifles, shotguns, suppressors and even potentially Class III (full auto) weapons. I don't really know how the various NFAs interact with the ICC and what have you, the possibilities are really interesting.
**personally I'd be down to manufacturer AZ/MT/wherever only weapons, I'd just keep a second bound book with the serial numbers for the in state only weapons, which would get prefixed with the state abbreviation, then the usual model designation (if it's one of my designs)
KalashnikovMarine wrote: the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional.
Ah yes, I'm sure that you'd also be okay with California criminalizing the war on drugs then-- and arresting federal agents sent to shut down marijuana suppliers/sellers/users?
Well, it is a way to get the law to the Supreme Court, who has dodged around second amendment issues because they know they'll have to rule one specific way they don't want to. This is a way of forcing their hand somewhat.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional.
Ah yes, I'm sure that you'd also be okay with California criminalizing the war on drugs then-- and arresting federal agents sent to shut down marijuana suppliers/sellers/users?
That's basically what Colorado and Washington state have done, though they have yet to say they'd string up DEA agents for trying to prosecute legal recreational pot users. Personally I'm all FOR that. the war on drugs needs to end post haste.
Ouze wrote: That was a horrible letter. Half of it was OK, but the whole second half just descended into, for lack of a better phrase, offtopic, full-bore derp.
I've always found it funny how closely state government resembles the internet.
Had the letter ended at "...-firearms regulated by SB 102." it would have been well constructed.
Ouze wrote: That was a horrible letter. Half of it was OK, but the whole second half just descended into, for lack of a better phrase, offtopic, full-bore derp.
I've always found it funny how closely state government resembles the internet.
Maybe they really are just robot androids built by Lizard people. The fools have allowed the androids access to the internet and its showing
Ouze wrote: That was a horrible letter. Half of it was OK, but the whole second half just descended into, for lack of a better phrase, offtopic, full-bore derp.
I've always found it funny how closely state government resembles the internet.
Had the letter ended at "...-firearms regulated by SB 102." it would have been well constructed.
Yes, I very much agree.
If I lived in Kansas, I would be very inclined to print and mail this to Mr. Kobach:
